Also problematic to the warmists’ theories is the fact that sea-ice continues smashing through record highs (even as the UN claims in the face of all evidence, including satellite images and NASA data, that ice is decreasing). Many scientists and experts are now forecasting a natural period of global cooling. As The New American documented recently in a comprehensive report, virtually every falsifiable man-made global-warming and global-cooling prediction of the last 50 years has been proven wrong. Facts and evidence, however, appear to matter little to the UN and its member regimes in their quest for carbon loot and more power.

“With this latest report, science has spoken yet again and with much more clarity,” declared UN boss Ban Ki-moon, almost deifying the global outfit’s discredited pseudo-science as if it could “speak” to the Earth’s lowly carbon sinners. “Time is not on our side,” he added at a press conference in Copenhagen amid the high-profile release of the last piece of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. “Leaders must act.” By “act,” the UN chief presumably means sign up for a UN “climate” regime next year rather than just play along with the crumbling warming charade.

Ban also argued that the consequences would be “irreversible” if humanity did not promptly surrender what remains of liberty, national sovereignty, and prosperity to a planetary UN regime under the guise of fighting CO2. “Even if emissions stopped tomorrow, we will be living with climate change for some time to come,” he said, ignoring the fact that climate has always changed and almost certainly always will, regardless of what humans do. “I have seen for myself those rapidly melting glaciers, most recently in Greenland together with the prime minister of Denmark.” If they had travelled to the Southern Hemisphere, they also could have seen the highest level of sea-ice cover since records began — but that would not fit the narrative or the UN climate models.

How about the price tag? Despite all of the previous UN calls for hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars to battle “global warming,” Ban now says it was a “myth” that “climate action” would be costly. Why the UN had been promoting a myth until this month was not made clear, nor was it immediately clear what made the UN see the light. Inaction, though, “will cost much, much more,” Ban claimed. Just how much “climate action” will cost apparently depends on how much can realistically be extorted from taxpayers more than anything else.

Meanwhile, the IPCC, a UN body that has been ridiculed by top scientists worldwide — especially after large numbers of experts resigned from it in disgust due to politicized quackery masquerading as “science” — continued to hype its doomsday forecasts. “Our assessment finds that the atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, sea level has risen and the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased to a level unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years,” claimed Thomas Stocker, co-chair of an IPCC group that helped compile the final UN report.

In response to the latest wave of UN climate alarmism, however, scientists are speaking out even louder. “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring,” explained Professor Bob Carter, chief science advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition and former head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University. “The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”

“Although today’s climate and extreme weather are well within the bounds of natural variability and the intensity and magnitude of extreme events is not increasing, there is, most definitely, a climate problem,” continued Carter, who also authored the book Taxing Air. “Natural climate change brings with it very real human and environmental costs. Therefore, we must carefully prepare for and adapt to climate hazards as and when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on expensive and ineffectual carbon dioxide controls in a futile attempt to stop natural climate change impoverishes societies and reduces our capacity to address these and other real world problems.”

However, apparently reading from what analysts described as the UN’s new alarmism marketing plan, Rajendra Pachauri, the widely criticized and ridiculed chair of the IPCC, went on to agree with UN boss Ban: Limiting “climate change” will not actually be as draconian as the UN had previously led the world to believe. “The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development,” he claimed. “All we need is the will to change, which we trust will be motivated by knowledge and an understanding of the science of climate change.”

Then, Pachauri cuts to the chase: The real purpose of the report is to provide a fig leaf of pseudo-scientific cover for governments and the UN to impose “substantial and sustained reductions” of CO2 emissions while funneling even more taxpayer wealth to globalist outfits and governments around the world. “I hope this report will serve the needs of the world’s governments and provide the scientific [sic] basis to negotiators as they work towards a new global climate agreement,” he said, referring to next year’s UN “global-warming” summit in Paris where globalists, governments, dictators, and alarmists hope to secure a devastating new planetary “climate” treaty.

All they are asking for, for now at least, is a “mere” 0.06 percent of global GDP per year to supposedly keep “warming” under two degrees. The UN warmists also want to slash emissions — a product of virtually every human activity, including breathing — by 40 to 70 percent by 2050. Of course, even top scientists in the Obama administration have admitted that there is no consensus on how sensitive the climate allegedly is to CO2 increases, so it was not clear how the UN came up with its latest figures and demands. Still, the overwhelming amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was not released by humans, and human-released CO2 represents a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases present naturally in the atmosphere.

As a growing number of scientists and experts worldwide come to the conclusion that catastrophic anthropogenic global-warming (CAGW) theories represent among the biggest scientific frauds in human history, more than a few critics lambasted the UN for continuing to demand huge sums to deal with bogus problems. Now, the world ought to get rid of the IPCC and quit allowing alarmists to scare the public into surrendering more of its wealth and freedom under the guise of dealing with “global warming,” experts said.

For years, surveys have consistently shown that a solid majority of Americans rejects man-made global-warming theories advanced by the UN and the Obama administration. Despite the fresh UN push to revive the melting hysteria surrounding “climate” and the big bucks poured into alarmist congressional campaigns by the pseudo-Green establishment, voters apparently still do not believe the fear-mongering. Climate alarmists were overwhelmingly crushed in this week’s elections.

“The UN IPCC's latest reports fell flat,” explained Climate Depot chief Marc Morano, a former staffer for Republican Senator and incoming Senate Environment Committee Chair James Inhofe of Oklahoma. “No matter how you slice it, the American public is not concerned or alarmed about 'global warming' and do not believe the government can regulate global temperatures or legislate storms. The election strikes a blow for unscientific claptrap about government regulations 'stopping' climate change or improving the weather.”

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Thank you for joining the discussion at The New American. We value our readers and encourage their participation, but in order to ensure a positive experience for our readership, we have a few guidelines for commenting on articles. If your post does not follow our policy, it will be deleted.

No profanity, racial slurs, direct threats, or threatening language.

No product advertisements.

Please post comments in English.

Please keep your comments on topic with the article. If you wish to comment on another subject, you may search for a relevant article and join or start a discussion there.

Comments that we consider abusive, spammy, off-topic, or harassing will be removed.

If our filtering system detects that you may have violated our policy, your comment will be placed in a queue for moderation. It will then be either approved or deleted. Once your comment is approved, it will then be viewable on the discussion thread.

If you need to report a comment, please flag it and it will be reviewed. Thank you again for being a valued reader of The New American.